MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Applicability of the Green-Ampt Infiltration Model with Shallow Boundary Conditions

2010· article· en· W2060005032 on OpenAlexafffund
Guoxiang Liu, James R. Craig, Eric D. Soulis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrologic Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsInfiltration (HVAC)LimitingWater tableBoundary value problemEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceApplied mathematicsMathematicsHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyGroundwaterMathematical analysisMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Green-Ampt model is an approximate analytical solution to Richards’ equation that is commonly used to simulate infiltration processes in hydrological models and land surface schemes. The Green-Ampt model assumes that neither a water table nor an impermeable layer (e.g., bedrock or a frost table) exist near the soil surface. In regional-scale applications these idealized conditions will often not be met, and it is presently unclear what implications this has for regional water resource models. This paper investigates the limiting conditions under which the Green-Ampt model is appropriate and how individual assumptions about lower boundary conditions affect the validity of the model. Guided by the comparison between the Green-Ampt model and numerical solutions to Richards’ equation, various simple revisions to the Green-Ampt model are suggested. Results demonstrate that even when the traditional assumptions are relaxed, the Green-Ampt model often still provides reasonable results for regional-scale analysis and can be amended to account for conditions for which it was not intended.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydrologic EngineeringSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207